pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism

I just got a link from Human Stupidity (he sends me a lot of stuff), from Refugee Resettlement Watch  titled:

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society praises federal agencies for “responding to anti-refugee resettlement backlash”

The article states, in part:

Pockets of Resistance!

The most interesting/amusing part, at least to us at RRW, is a segment of the testimony praising the State Department (PRM) and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for “responding” to the “anti-refugee resettlement backlash”

(I assume by responding they mean that those federal agencies shoveled more of your $$$ to contractors to write reports and hire the likes of ‘Welcoming America’ to help community organizers get your minds right about the growing crush of refugees resettled to your towns and cities).

Here is what they say:

They thank PRM and ORR for “responding to the anti-refugee resettlement backlash that has emerged to threaten the long-term viability of the US Refugee Admissions Program…”

Cool! They have written a whole report about “pockets of resistance.”

It’s only natural that native people protest when they’re being replaced by outsiders – especially if those outsiders get preferential treatment by government, and if those outsiders tend to rape and murder at much higher rates than the native population. While this is not always the case, it certainly is true with Latin American migrants to the U.S. and Muslim migrants to Sweden (for example). Governments, the media and organizations such as HIAS always paint a biased picture of refugee resettlement; they’d have us believe that the host population suffers no ill effects whatsoever, and that the refugees (in the words of HIAS):

can be tremendous assets to their neighborhoods and societies, boosting local economies, and excelling at entrepreneurship. This is especially true in the U.S., where starting over offers not just safety but promise and opportunity.

HIAS has assets of almost 50 million dollars. According to its website, 88% of its donations go toward programs – and yet it appears that a few people are making a lot of money from their employment at HIAS. According to their most recent 990 form, HIAS only has 76 employees – and yet their  total expenditures for salaries and other compensation is over $11 million. In other words, the average annual income, for employees of HIAS, is $144,737!

Browsing their website, one gets the impression that this organization does a lot of good in the world. I have little doubt that this is so. HIAS has been around a long time and many of their activities involve helping people where they are, without resettling them. They’ve been at it for about 130 years. It’s likely that I owe my very existence to them; they were active around the turn of the 20th century, when my own grandparents were fleeing the pogroms in Russia. For all I know, they might have helped my family come to the U.S.

Regarding HIAS’ mission and values, we read:

Guided by our Jewish values and history, we bring more than 130 years of expertise to our work with refugees…

Impassioned by our mission, we bring the lessons of HIAS’ history and Jewish ethics and experience to our commitment to serve refugees and other displaced persons of concern around the world…

If HIAS owes its mission, and values, to Jewish tradition, then we would expect it to do everything in its power to protect the Jewish people. Yet HIAS is in favor of resettling Africans in Israel. Under the heading “HIAS in Israel” (which features a black man wearing an “I Love Tel Aviv” tshirt), we read:

HIAS is using our expertise to help the country develop a humane admission system for refugees and asylum seekers that adheres to international legal standards and protects the security of the state. According to UNHCR, there are 55,000 refugees in Israel: roughly 36,000 from Eritrea, 15,000 from Sudan, and 4,000 from other African countries. HIAS works closely with both the Israeli government and UNHCR in their efforts to protect these refugees and review their claims of asylum. HIAS also provides ongoing training to personnel from the Israeli Ministry of the Interior to ensure that they can fully assume the responsibilities of Refugee Status Determination as laid out in international law.

Israel is a small country. Its leaders are right when the say that African migration poses an existential threat to the Jewish state. Surely, HIAS must realize this. One can only assume that, since it advocates for resettlement into America and Europe, it would be vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy if it made an exception for Israel. Hence HIAS’ measured, and calculated, verbiage.

As with European countries, and the United States, HIAS fails to ask itself one simple question: At what point do our activities hurt host countries to the extent that the benefit to refugees is no longer justified? It should also ask itself if there is such a thing as too much immigration and, if so, where would we draw the line and say “no more!

If there’s a backlash against resettlement activities, a responsible organization would ask itself why there is such a backlash. It would objectively investigate claims of increased crime, reduced ethnic cohesion among natives and lowered wages for entry level jobs.

But I suppose when you’re making $144,000 a year, such questions might be “inconvenient.”

On a positive Jewish note, today is Jonas Salk‘s birthday. Happy birthday Dr. Salk!

I remember reading a short news blurb back in 1998. It said something about a popular Algerian folk singer being murdered. Though I hadn’t a clue who the singer might be (his name was not mentioned), I felt a pang in my chest; my gut told me that humanity had suffered a great loss.

Only years later did I learn that the murdered singer was Matoub Lounes/ Lounes Matoub – and that a more correct term for his killing would be “martyred.”

No, today is not his birthday, nor is it the anniversary of his death. But I was enjoying some of my old music CDs, and among them are songs by the late singer. He sang in several languages, but first and foremost in his native Tamazight (“Berber”) dialect of the mountainous Kabylie region. Wikipedia has this to say about Matoub:

Lounès Matoub (in Kabyle: Lwennas Maṭub, in Tifinagh: ⵍⵡⴻⵏⵏⴰⵙ ⵎⴰⵟⵓⴱ, Algerian Arabic: معتوب لوناس) (January 24, 1956 – June 25, 1998) is a famous BerberKabyle singer, poet, thinker and mondol player who was a prominent advocate of the Berber cause, human rights and secularism in Algeria throughout his life. He was a symbol of resistance and courage.

He is revered as a hero and martyr in Kabylie and the Berber World but reviled by most of the Arab population in Algeria for his atheism and the alleged blasphemy of some songs (like Allahu Akbar) along with his militant advocacy of Berber rights, so he was unpopular among both warring parties during the Algerian Civil War. His assassination, in circumstances which remain unclear, provoked violent riots in Kabylie. Berber Algerians still accuse the Algerian regime of killing Matoub Lounès, but some of the Algerian regime’s figures accused the Islamist terrorists of this crime.

His music mixes oriental Chaabi orchestration with politicized Berber (Tamazight) lyrics, and covers a broad variety of topics including the Berber cause, democracy, freedom, religion, Islamism, love, exile, memory, history, peace and human rights. Unlike the Amazigh poet/musicians who preceded him, Matoub’s style was direct and confrontational. Fellow musician Moh Aileche recalls:

He went straight. He criticized a president. He mentioned the president of Algeria right in the beginning of his career. He goes black and white. He was very, very clear in his songs, and he is the only singer – not only Algeria, but in all of North Africa – who criticized the government and criticized clearly. He would never get afraid.[2]

Despite being banned from Algerian radio and television, Matoub became, and remains, an extremely popular Kabyle singer…

During the riots in October 1988, Matoub was shot five times by a policeman[citation needed] and left for dead. He was hospitalised for two years, requiring 17 operations including the insertion of an artificial sacrum and the contraction of his leg by 5 cm. His 1989 album L’Ironie du sort describes his long convalescence.

During the civil war, which began in 1992, the Islamist Armed Islamic Group (GIA) added his name to a hitlist of artists and intellectuals. Matoub remained in Algeria. On 25 September 1994, he was abducted. He was held for two weeks in a GIA mountain stronghold and condemned to death. He was released following a large public demonstration in which his supporters threatened “total war” on the Islamists.

Reading the various news stories regarding the threat of extremist Muslims, we find many armchair warriors; people who talk tough from the safety of their own homes, and politicians who take a hard line – knowing full well that their risk of paying the ultimate price is minimal.

If ever there was a man who had the courage to speak his mind, and look death squarely in the eye, it was Matoub. In the end, he did pay the ultimate price. The Wikipedia article continues:

On 25 June 1998, at approximately 12:30 pm local time, Matoub’s car was stopped at a roadblock while he was driving along a mountainous road in eastern Algeria. The car was fired upon by masked gunmen, killing Matoub and wounding his wife, Nadia Matoub, and two sisters-in-law.

The story of Matoub goes back well before his birth. His legacy is that of a people that has inhabited its current homeland since before the dawn of history. The Berbers, or Tamazight, do not belong to any specific race. Again, according to Wikipedia:

The Berber identity is usually wider than language and ethnicity, and encompasses the entire history and geography of North Africa. Berbers are not an entirely homogeneous ethnicity and they encompass a range of phenotypes, societies and ancestries. The unifying forces for the Berber people may be their shared language, belonging to the Berber homeland, or a collective identification with the Berber heritage and history…

The Maghreb or western North Africa on the whole is believed to have been inhabited by Berbers since from at least 10,000 B.C

I might add that their collective marginalization, by invading Arabs, has served to solidify their ethnic/political solidarity. There can be little doubt that Matoub, and his kin, kept their well-established heritage in mind as they fought and bled to preserve it. To quote Wikipedia yet again:

Since the independence of Algeria, tensions have arisen between Kabylie and the central government on several occasions. In 1963 the FFS party of Hocine Aït Ahmed contested the authority of the FLN, which has promoted itself as the only party in the nation.

In 1980, protesters mounted several months of demonstrations in Kabylie demanding the recognition of Berber as an official language; this period has been called the Berber Spring. The politics of identity intensified during the 1990s as the regime initiated Arabization due to growing Islamist power. In 1994–1995, a school boycott occurred, termed the “strike of the school bag”. In June and July 1998, there were violent protests after the assassination of singer Matoub Lounes and the law requiring use of the Arabic language in all fields.

In the months following April 2001 (called the Black Spring), major riots — together with the emergence of the Arouch, neo-traditional local councils, followed the killing of Masinissa Guermah, a young Kabyle, by gendarmes. The protests gradually decreased after the Kabyle won some concessions from President Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

The struggle of the people of Kabylie, to preserve their language, should serve as an inspiration for the rest of us – perhaps most of all, for the Afrikaners. There are some parallels between the struggles of Tamazight and Afrikaans.


As a respected citizen of the Leftosphere, the Nature Conservancy supports the rights of indigenous peoples. Their website proclaims:

Empowering Indigenous peoples throughout the world.

The natural world is central to the human rights of Indigenous peoples, as well as their economic, spiritual, physical and cultural well- being. Complex challenges including the development of natural resources and climate change are threatening the environments on which their livelihoods and cultures depend.

The Nature Conservancy recognizes the significant contributions of Indigenous peoples to conservation and collaborates with them to foster our shared commitment to environmental stewardship. Our human rights-based approach to conservation incorporates traditional knowledge and cultural values and results in tangible benefits. We work as a partner, making sure that community needs and local priorities are identified and addressed.

Our programs target urgent threats, secure land tenure and access, support Indigenous rights and improved governance, and strengthen livelihoods. Our initiatives support the rights of Indigenous peoples to participate more fully in making the decisions that will shape their futures.

Indeed. We would expect such an organization to show respect toward the indigenous peoples of the past, and we would not expect to see it glorifying those who perpetrated genocide upon them.

How, then, would we reconcile the above statement with the following one?

Buffalo Soldiers in the U.S. Army were some of the first defenders of our national parks, serving as rangers in Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon. They were instrumental in fighting fires, cracking down on poachers and clearing roads. One of the most notable Buffalo Soldiers was Capt. Charles Young, the third African American to graduate from West Point and the first African-American superintendent of a national park. The legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers lives on through Yosemite ranger Shelton Johnson, who created a website to tell their story.

These Buffalo soldiers took part in the dispossession of the indigenous peoples of North America. The fact that they later received government jobs as caretakers at national parks does not negate this fact. While the conflict between settlers and Native Americans was an exceedingly complex one, with atrocities committed on all sides, the Leftosphere invariably sympathizes with the Native Americans. Apparently, an exception is made when the settlers are “people of color” themselves. While one might argue that the Nature Conservancy is only trying to give credit where credit is due, without negating any lurid past these soldiers might have had, I find such hair-splitting to be disingenuous. The South African government did many positive things during the years of apartheid, yet we never find the Leftosphere giving them credit.

Others have pointed out this hypocrisy. For example, a neo-Confederate group made the point back in 2005:

   On January 17th, Carrollton Georgia put on it’s Annual King Day parade. I attended this one with a special guest, as it took on a special meaning by some of the participants invited. I had read where a local amateur historian named Don North and his 6 member “Grierson’s Buffalo Soldiers Cavalry Association of Georgia” was invited to join, most likely at the behest of Carrollton’s only black councilman Gerald Byrd. Mr. Byrd had allowed Mr. North to speak to his youth class at Carrollton Middle School – and I read an article in the Carrollton paper about it…

  Well I am not the most educated person, but I do know that that whole Custer/Cavalry/Western time period meant lots of innocent Indians were being slaughtered, and the Buffalo Soldiers happily did their share of butchery. I sent out a call for help to stand against this kind of glorification, and got probably the most qualified spokesman to accomplish the task. My special guest was none other than that Native American activist, Gary Spottedwolf… who is a Lakota Sioux (I love his “Custer Got Siouxed” poster) and whose ancestors were targets of the Buffalo Soldiers ‘Ethnic Cleansing’…

  He wore his warrior outfit with US Cavalry jacket and 4 scalp swatches. He is one tough dude, as those outfits aren’t very warm, and it was about 30 with a strong wind. He also brought a picture that blew me away, but sent one of North’s boys into denial. It was a picture of a deep trench filled with dead Sioux, and a Buffalo Soldier standing next to them. When the young misled soldier wannabe was shown the picture, he said “naw, that ain’t no Buffalo Soldier”.   North stayed in the distance playing with his historically inaccurate 10th Cavalry flag that didn’t include crossed sabers…

  Initially some were heard to exclaim “he’s coming to be with us!”, but Spottedwolf cut that BS short. Another of the young actors walked up behind Gary and had the nerve to say “That sure is a nice jacket” and without missing a beat he retorted “It should be – I got it off a dead Buffalo Soldier. Spottedwolf then commenced to giving the group, approx 15 mounted riders that included North and 3 other actors (the others represented ???) a lecture about the real Buffalo Soldiers and their campaign of terrorism and genocide. Then a white woman started crying this was a day for unity, which came the reply that there can be no unity as long as his people were on reservations.  I told Unity lady that the Confederate Govt. was the only ‘White man’s Govt. that accepted the Indians. She looked bewildered…

The Buffalo soldiers were not only guilty of slaughtering Native Americans, according to some, they also took part in the senseless slaughter of the buffalo. According to Roy Cook:

The Kiowa have no love for the historic ‘Buffalo Soldiers’. They have not forgotten that because in those ‘Indian War’ times there was war between the Kiowa people and their main source of commissary the buffalo and the white men. The white men built forts in the Kiowa country, and the Negro soldiers (the Tenth Cavalry, made up of Negro troops) shot the buffalo as fast as they could, but the buffalo still kept coming on, coming on, even into the post cemetery at Fort Sill. Soldiers were not enough to hold them back.

If those who massacred innocent people, and mowed down countless buffalo, can be considered “conservation heroes” by taking government jobs at national parks, then the term has very little meaning. I would urge the Nature Conservancy to be more selective in who they consider “heroes.”


It’s always refreshing when I can point to a fellow Jew and feel pride that he’s doing God’s work. Chipping away at the Cathedral is God’s work, even if you don’t believe in God. In a way, it almost makes me happy that there is a Cathedral. I’ll be blunt. Having such an enemy helps give meaning to my life, just as the existence of “racists” gives meaning to the lives of those within the Cathedral. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Each side helps define the identity of the other. In the case of pro-whites, such as myself, we also provide livelihoods for the other side. Just ask the SPLC. They make millions off of us. As for me, I demand my cut of the proceeds. I want a commission!

Jerry Seinfeld was recently asked why his show features only white males. His response? “Who cares?” Watch it here. Many bloggers, such as myself, spend our days chipping away at the Cathedral. It’s a civic duty, it’s fun and it makes us feel good. But we’re like microbes eating away at its facade at a glacial pace. When a celebrity, such as Seinfeld, says “who cares?” it’s more like an earthquake, which shakes its very foundations.

As icing on the cake, take a look at the comments. They’re practically 100% in favor of Seinfeld. I’d say that’s quite encouraging.

A while back, while innocently strolling through downtown Portland, I encountered a used book store that featured a nice selection of books for 35¢ each. I picked up a copy of “The United States in 1800” by Henry Adams. This has always been a period of American history that’s fascinated me.

Adams goes to great lengths to emphasizes how isolated each region was from the other. Travel was slow, dangerous and unreliable. He writes (pp. 6-8):

The union of New England with New York and Pennsylvania was not an easy task even as a problem of geography, and with an ocean highway; but the union of New England with the Carolinas, and of the seacoast with the interior, promised to be a hopeless undertaking. Physical contact alone could make one country of these isolated empires, but to the patriotic American of 1800… the idea of ever bringing the Mississippi River, either by land or water, into close contact with New England, must have seemed wild. By water, an Erie Canal was already foreseen; by land, centuries of labor could alone conquer those obstacles which Nature permitted to be overcome.

In the minds of practical men, the experience of Europe left few doubts on this point. After two thousand years of public labor and private savings, even despotic monarchs, who employed the resources of their subjects as they pleased, could in 1800 pass from one part of their European dominions to another little more quickly than they might have done in the age of Antonines. A few short canals had been made, a few bridges had been built, and excellent post-road extended from Madrid to St. Petersburg; but the heavy diligence that rumbled from Calais to Paris required three days for its journey of one hundred and fifty miles, and if travellers ventured on  a trip to Marseilles they met with rough roads and hardships like those of the Middle Ages. Italy was in 1800 almost as remote from the north of Europe as when carriage-roads were first built. Neither in time nor in thought was Florence or Rome much nearer to London in Wordsworth’s youth than in the youth of Milton or Gray…

While Europe had thus consumed centuries in improving paths of trade… America was required to construct, without delay, at least three great roads and canals, each several hundred miles long, across m0untain ranges, through a country not yet inhabited, to points where no great markets existed…

Even the lightly equipped traveller found a short journey no slight effort. Between Boston and New York was a tolerable highway, along which, thrice a week, light stage-coaches carried passengers and the mail, in three days. From New York a stage-coach started every week-day for Philadelphia, consuming the greater part of two days in the journey; and the road between Paulus Hook, the modern Jersey City, and Hackensack, was declared… to be as bad as any other part of the route between Maine and Georgia. South of Philadelphia the road was tolerable as far as Baltimore, but between Baltimore and the new city of Washington it meandered through forests; the driver chose the track which seemed least dangerous, and rejoiced if in wet seasons he reached Washington without miring or upsetting his wagon.

This is why, until fairly recently, each rural region and valley had its own accent. Given enough time, American would have produced hundreds of separate dialects and languages.

But people didn’t want isolation; they wanted progress, commerce, access to the outside world, opportunities and exotic products to grace their homes and their bodies. Isolation is a hardship, much like dieting or frugality. People don’t enjoy dieting or frugality – but they do enjoy the long-term results. Just as a person rejoices in his svelte physique, which he acquired through sacrifice, so too might a community rejoice in its distinctiveness, which it acquired through the sacrifice of isolation.

These days, people are encouraged to relinquish their differences. Cross-ethnic coupling is touted as a positive development. Neighborhoods, schools and workplaces are required by law to mix. Ironically, people who object to the destruction of their distinctiveness are accused of opposing “diversity.”

But when it comes to the animal kingdom, the powers that be are less ambiguous. With animals, true diversity is the law. Even a population of rats, about which there is some disagreement over whether it constitutes its own subspecies or not, can stand in the way of development and cost millions of dollars. We read, in a 2007 Fox news story:

A new study reinforces a tiny rodent’s reputation as the mouse that roared, and that could block millions of dollars in development in Wyoming and Colorado if it hangs on to its endangered status.

For the second time, a study has found the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is distinct from other types of mice and deserves federal protection…

Eighteen months ago the Interior Department announced it was withdrawing the Preble’s endangered status based on a study that concluded it was actually a more common subspecies of jumping mouse.

Developers cheered the decision, but after a chorus of complaints by other scientists and environmental groups, the decision was delayed and a new study was ordered.

Should human populations be treated the same as animal subspecies? One of the differences between animals and humans is that the former lack free choice – but when the government steps in and denies us our freedom of choice, by forcefully integrating us, by imposing its own favored cultural mores and dialect (through the corporate-owned media, with which it is symbiotic) and by importing hordes of foreigners, then we too lack free choice.

It might be argued that human diversity (biological and cultural) should be valued more than animal diversity. Human societies endured generations of deprivation as the price for their diversity. When humans suffer for something, the product of that suffering is given a higher premium. The fact that many soldiers died for our country is furnished as a reason to be more patriotic. The suffering of Jesus, and Christian martyrs, is used to instill piety among modern Christians. Jews recall the ultimate sacrifice of the ten martyrs twice a year in order to bolster our own commitment.

But this concept is not applicable to animals. We may value a thoroughbred, but not due to the suffering of its ancestors. There were no martyrs among the ancestors of the modern Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

Feel free to read my earlier post, “Of ducks and men“, for more on this.

I picked up a copy of “Oregon Jewish Life” magazine yesterday. It’s a free publication and it seems to be geared more toward Reform Jews. Naturally, it has a liberal bent. A recurring theme seems to be that traditional Judaism has always touted some of the values that today’s liberals support. For example, there’s an article about interfaith outreach to Muslims, a blurb about an “MLK Shabbat,” where “Beth Israel has collaborated with local African American communities… honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” and even a piece touting the virtues of “marriage freedom.” In this latter piece, a Portland teen (Duncan McAlpine Sennet) actually made the argument (in a “Torah” discourse no less) that since opponents of gay marriage cite the biblical definition of marriage “as the union between one man and one woman,” and yet we find Jacob marrying two women, therefore everybody should be able to marry whomsoever they love. Sennet was encouraged to share his flawed logic with the world and his video went viral.

It’s hard to decide whether to laugh or to cry. But two articles, in particular, caught my attention. One is titled “Should vegan be the new kosher?” In this column, Joseph Lieberman claims that:

A vegan lifestyle isn’t just a healthy choice for our bodies, it’s also an ethical choice that embodies the Jewish ideal of compassionately “healing the world” – tikkun olam.

For the record, “tikkun olam” does not mean “healing the world.” It means “fixing the world,” and refers to a totally different (kabbalistic) concept.

Lieberman goes on to claim that “eating vegan is like a mitzvah,” and he quotes the book “Judaism and Vegetarianism” by Richard Schwartz:

I think that eating meat or fish is a denial of all ideals, even of all religions. … How can we speak of right and justice if we take an innocent creature and shed its blood? Every kind of killing seems to me savage and I find no justification for it.

In all fairness, Lieberman does point out that traditional Judaism requires the use of certain animal products, that “blood sacrifices were a major part of the Temple rituals.” But he goes on to imply that, in light of current mistreatment of livestock, even livestock destined for kosher slaughter, it no longer makes sense to eat meat.

The second article is called “Tu B’Shevat: New Year of the Trees.” Here we find Rich Geller implying that the Jewish new year for trees, which goes back to the times of the Mishnah, is intricately connected to environmentalism. He writes:

Tu B’Shevat is also an opportunity to teach kids to reduce, reuse and recycle. Go green and start composting if you don’t already.

There’s nothing unusual, or objectionable, about tying in traditional Jewish concepts with contemporary issues; this is a long-standing tradition. But when a pattern emerges where all these issues are liberal pet causes, it gives the impression that the starting point is Liberalism, not Judaism.

Reading this magazine reminds me of an article about the pope, written by my friend at diversity chronicle. That article reported that the pope had declared “All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them.” But that article was satire. Unfortunately, this magazine is not.

I’d like to ask the editors of the Oregon Jewish Life magazine if there is any belief or practice at all, in traditional Judaism, that modern Liberalism would not agree with. Can they find even a single value, embraced by liberals today, that Judaism would frown upon? I think the answer would be “no.” In their minds, the Torah is but a tool for the advancement of whatever the liberal establishment deems worthy. For them, Judaism has been reduced to an “Amen machine.”

For what it’s worth, I agree with Duncan Sennet that gays should be allowed to pair off as they please, without interference from government. I agree with Joseph Lieberman that a vegan/vegetarian diet is a worthy goal (or at least that its adherents’ intentions are often noble), and that animals should not be made to needlessly suffer. I agree, overall, with the environmental goals of Rich Geller. What bothers me is how they slavishly follow every liberal cause, as if were the word of God – and how they try to force our ancestors to follow along as well. They rather remind me of the old Mormon practice of posthumous conversions.

It’s true that modern Liberalism was largely founded by Jews. It’s even possible that some of Liberalism’s tenets were based upon traditional Jewish ideas. But Liberalism soon took on a life of its own and became master – while Judaism became subordinate. If left-leaning organized Jewry has disdain for whites, it’s not due to any statement in the Talmud, rather it’s due to its slavish adherence to Liberalism (which preaches tolerance toward individual whites, but vile hatred toward whites as a group). Secular, and non-Orthodox observant Jews, give very little credence to Talmudic texts – unless they happen to agree with the Liberal narrative.

When a nation tries to embody everything that is good, then it ceases to be a nation. We don’t try to cook Italian cuisine so that it includes the flavors of Thai food, Japanese food and Polish food. We don’t try to encompass the qualities of rock, blues and country into our opera. We don’t attempt to incorporate the fashions of Shogun Japan, Renaissance Italy and late Czarist Russia into our tuxedos. So too should we not strive to claim that every contemporary popular idea is actually a part of Judaism.

The same is true of America. Politicians speak of “American values” – but I have yet to hear that term defined. I have not yet seen anybody give an example of an “American value” that is not also considered a universal one. For all these lofty words, shallowness and stupidity lay underneath.

For the first time in history, and likely the last, the first day of Hannukah falls on Thanksgiving. According to Livescience:

By Tia Ghose, Staff Writer

It’s a once in more than 70,000-year event: The first day of Hanukkah this year coincides with Thanksgiving.

As a result, Jews everywhere are gearing up for “Thanksgivukkah,” a mashup of Thanksgiving and the Jewish festival of lights. This lineup of the first day of Hanukkah with Thanksgiving is incredibly rare.

“That’s not going to happen again for thousands and thousands of years. No one knows exactly how long, because the calendars aren’t going up that high,” said Jason Miller, a rabbi in Michigan who blogs at “It’s something like 70,000 years,” assuming of course that America, the Jews and the human race are still around at that time.

If memory serves me right, the last time this happened, turkeys were still dinosaurs. Fire hadn’t even been discovered yet, so they couldn’t be cooked anyway; Jewish Neanderthals could only fantasize about latkes. We’ve come a long way since then.

The article goes on to explain:

Many calendars

The reason for this year’s rare alignment has to do with quirks of two calendars, the Gregorian and Jewish calendars. Much of the world follows the Gregorian calendar, which has a 365-day year based on the Earth’s orbit around the sun, with leap years every four years. The Gregorian calendar was implemented by Pope Gregory to keep Easter in line with the season it was originally celebrated in.

But the Jewish calendar, which was created more than 2,000 years ago, follows the waxing and waning of the moon. That calendar has 12 months of roughly 30 days each, which works out to a bit more than 354 days in a year. As a result, the Jewish year creeps earlier and earlier relative to the Gregorian calendar. But many Jewish holidays, such as Passover, are tied to seasons such as spring.

To keep holidays in line with their seasons, the Jewish calendar includes an entire extra month in seven of every 19 years. This year is a leap year, so Hanukkah and all of the other Jewish holidays came especially early in 2013. And Thanksgiving, which falls on the fourth Thursday in November, happened to come extra late this year, allowing for the convergence.

Because the extra month on the Jewish calendar will occur in 2014, Hanukkah will once again happen in December, Miller said.

“That also allows us to get Passover back in the spring,” Miller told LiveScience.

In reality, the Jewish calendar was implemented out of necessity. In days of yore, the Jewish court (Sandhedrin) would wait for witnesses to come forward, each month, to testify that they had seen the new moon. At that point, the court would declare a new month and word was sent out to all corners of Jewish habitation. As for the extra month required to keep the holidays in season, Jewfaq explains:

In ancient times, this month was added by observation: the Sanhedrin observed the conditions of the weather, the crops and the livestock, and if these were not sufficiently advanced to be considered “spring,” then the Sanhedrin inserted an additional month into the calendar to make sure that Pesach (Passover) would occur in the spring (it is, after all, referred to in the Torah as Chag he-Aviv, the Festival of Spring!).

Why did ancient Jews stop using witnesses to declare the new month? It was because of diversity. All was well as long as the Jewish population was homogenous and unified. But after the Babylonian Exile, when full-blooded Jews came into contact with the half-bloods (Samaritans) who had settled in the Land of Israel, tensions flared. From the Center for Online Jewish Studies:

The Samaritans were a mixed people, made up of Israelites who had not been exiled when the Northern Kingdom was destroyed in 722 B.C.E. and people of various foreign nationalities whom the Assyrians had resettled in the area in an attempt to ensure that Israel’s national aspirations could not again come to the fore. This mixed group had adopted a syncretistic form of Judaism that combined old northern traditions with those of the resettled nations. When work began on the Temple, the Samaritans approached the Jews to join in the project. The Judeans rejected the Samaritans because of their questionable descent.

In First Temple times it was possible for foreigners to join the Jewish people in an informal way by moving physically and socially into the land and adhering to its religion and laws. During the exile, Judaism had been transformed from a nationality which depended on a connection to the land and culture to a religious and ethnic community which depended upon descent. How else could Judaism have ensured its continuity when deprived of its homeland? The returning Jews from Babylonia could not accept the questionable genealogy of the Samaritans. On the other hand, there was not yet a system for religious conversion like that developed somewhat later on in the Second Temple period. Hence, there was no choice but to reject the Samaritans, even had they agreed to abandon their syncretistic practices. In response to their rejection, the Samaritans attempted, although with limited success, to influence the Persian authorities to halt the rebuilding of the Temple and to limit the powers of the priestly and temporal government of the Jews.

The Samaritans used various tricks in order to sabotage traditional Jewish life. One of them is described by My Jewish Learning:

Originally, there was not a set calendar for Jewish months. Instead, the Sanhedrin would declare a new month after receiving the testimony of two reliable witnesses reporting that they had seen the new moon. Then the message was spread throughout Israel and Babylonia via small fires on hilltops. When a new moon was announced, someone would go to the top of the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem with a long pole of wood. He would set the end of his pole on fire and wave it around until he could see someone on another hilltop waving his own pole. The second person waved his pole until he could see a third person waving, and so on until the message reached Babylonia.

Eventually the Samaritans began lighting fires on hilltops in order to mislead the Jews, and so instead of fires, messengers were sent out from Jerusalem. By the later Amoraic period, a fixed calendar was set, and there was no longer any need for witnesses or messengers.

Due to the increased area of Jewish settlement, it became impractical to continue sending messengers in this way. The system of fires, had it not been abandoned, might have continued to function, at least for a while.

At first glance, having a calendar is a great convenience. It takes away the guessing game, removes the potential for abuse and allows people to plan ahead. On the other hand, something important was lost: There was no longer an intimate connection between the rabbinical authorities (the Sanhendrin) and the people. The institution of a calendar was a major step downward into the abyss of rigid ritual. It helped transform the Jewish people from a people of trust to a people of codification. The calendar was one of the first stages in the ossification of warm flesh and blood. No longer did people have to meet face to face in order to set the pace of national life. Now, all one had to do was consult the calendar.

Hanukkah is the anti-diversity Holiday. Hellenized Syrians had defiled the Temple and were attempting to stamp out Judaism among the Jews. The traditional story of Hanukkah, as it appears in Wikipedia, reads:

When the Second Temple in Jerusalem was looted and services stopped, Judaism was outlawed. In 167 BCE Antiochus ordered an altar to Zeus erected in the Temple. He banned brit milah (circumcision) and ordered pigs to be sacrificed at the altar of the temple (the sacrifice of pigs to the Greek gods was standard ritual practice in the Ancient Greek religion).[17]

Antiochus’s actions provoked a large-scale revolt. Mattityahu, a Jewish priest, and his five sons Jochanan, Simeon, Eleazar, Jonathan, and Judah led a rebellion against Antiochus. Judah became known as Yehuda HaMakabi (“Judah the Hammer”). By 166 BCE Mattathias had died, and Judah took his place as leader. By 165 BCE the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy was successful. The Temple was liberated and rededicated. The festival of Hanukkah was instituted to celebrate this event.[18] Judah ordered the Temple to be cleansed, a new altar to be built in place of the polluted one and new holy vessels to be made. According to the Talmud, unadulterated and undefiled pure olive oil with the seal of the kohen gadol (high priest) was needed for the menorah in the Temple, which was required to burn throughout the night every night…

The oil needed to be pure, the Temple needed to be purified and the nation needed to be purged of the cultural imperialism that had tainted it. Of course, all this is relative; there is no such thing as a “pure culture” and, as a matter of fact, they even could have used olive oil that was less than pure. But the concept behind Hanukkah is to take back the culture that is ours, that our enemies would extinguish if given the chance.

Perhaps it’s time that America had it’s own Hanukkah.

Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 194 other followers